> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 03:55:49PM +0300, 4 wrote:
>>
>> "cbq can entirely be expressed in it" ok. so how do i set priorities for
>> queues in hfsc for my local(not for a router above that knows nothing about
>> my existence. tos is an absolutely unviable concept in the real world)
>>
On 2023/12/01 15:57, 4 wrote:
> >But CBQ doesn't help anyway, you still have this same problem.
> the problem when both from below and from above can be told to you "go and
> fuck yourself" can't be solved, but cbq gives us two mechanisms we need-
> priorities and traffic restriction. nothing
> On 2023-12-01, 4 wrote:
>I don't know why you are going on about SMT here.
i'm talking about not sacrificing functionality for the sake of hypothetical
performance. the slides say that using queues degrades performance by 10%. and
you're saying there won't be anything in the queues until an
On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 04:56:40 +0300
4 wrote:
> match proto icmp set prio(6 7) queue(6-fly 7-ack)
> how is this supposed to work at all? i.e. packets are placed both in
> prio's queues 6/7(in theory priorities and queues are the same
> thing), and in hsfc's queues 6-fly/7-ack at once?
I am not
On 2023-12-01, 4 wrote:
>> On 2023-11-30, 4 wrote:
>>> we can simply calculate such a basic thing as the flow rate by dividing the
>>> number of bytes in the past packets by the time. we can control the speed
>>> through delays in sending packets. this is one side of the question. as for
>>>
> On 2023-11-30, 4 wrote:
>> we can simply calculate such a basic thing as the flow rate by dividing the
>> number of bytes in the past packets by the time. we can control the speed
>> through delays in sending packets. this is one side of the question. as for
>> the sequence, priorities work
On 2023-11-30, 4 wrote:
> we can simply calculate such a basic thing as the flow rate by dividing the
> number of bytes in the past packets by the time. we can control the speed
> through delays in sending packets. this is one side of the question. as for
> the sequence, priorities work here.
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:12:02 +0300
> 4 wrote:
>> i haven't used queues for a long time, but now there is a need.
>> previously, queues had not only a hierarchy, but also a priority. now
>> there is no priority, only the hierarchy exists.
> It took me quite some time to wrap my head around
> On 11/29/23 6:47 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2023-11-29, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
yes, all this can be make without hierarchy, only with priorities(because
hierarchy it's priorities), but who and why decided that eight would be
enough? the one who created cbq- he created it
On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 00:12:02 +0300
4 wrote:
> i haven't used queues for a long time, but now there is a need.
> previously, queues had not only a hierarchy, but also a priority. now
> there is no priority, only the hierarchy exists.
It took me quite some time to wrap my head around this, having
On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 15:55 +0300, 4 wrote:
> "cbq can entirely be expressed in it" ok. so how do i set priorities
> for queues in hfsc
You stack HFSC with link-share service curves with linkshare criterion
1:0 - or in pf.conf(5) terms: "bandwidth 1" and "bandwidth 0".
Or you do not configure
On 11/29/23 6:47 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2023-11-29, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
yes, all this can be make without hierarchy, only with priorities(because hierarchy it's
priorities), but who and why decided that eight would be enough? the one who created cbq- he
created it for practical
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 02:57:23PM +0300, 4 wrote:
>> so what happened to cbq? why such the powerful and useful thing was removed?
>> or Theo delete it precisely because it was too good for obsd? %D
> Actually, the new queueing system was done by Henning, planned as far back
> as (at least)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 03:55:49PM +0300, 4 wrote:
>
> "cbq can entirely be expressed in it" ok. so how do i set priorities for
> queues in hfsc for my local(not for a router above that knows nothing about
> my existence. tos is an absolutely unviable concept in the real world)
> pf-router? i
> On 2023-11-29, 4 wrote:
>> here is a simple task, there are millions of such tasks. there is an
>> internet connection, and although it is declared as symmetrical 100mbit
>> it's 100 for download, but for upload it depends on the time of day, so
>> we can forget about the channel width and
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 02:57:23PM +0300, 4 wrote:
> so what happened to cbq? why such the powerful and useful thing was removed?
> or Theo delete it precisely because it was too good for obsd? %D
Actually, the new queueing system was done by Henning, planned as far back
as (at least) 2012
so what happened to cbq? why such the powerful and useful thing was removed? or
Theo delete it precisely because it was too good for obsd? %D
On 2023-11-29, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
>> yes, all this can be make without hierarchy, only with priorities(because
>> hierarchy it's priorities), but who and why decided that eight would be
>> enough? the one who created cbq- he created it for practical tasks. but this
>> "hateful eight" and
On 2023-11-29, 4 wrote:
> here is a simple task, there are millions of such tasks. there is an
> internet connection, and although it is declared as symmetrical 100mbit
> it's 100 for download, but for upload it depends on the time of day, so
> we can forget about the channel width and focus on
yes, all this can be make without hierarchy, only with priorities(because hierarchy it's
priorities), but who and why decided that eight would be enough? the one who created cbq- he
created it for practical tasks. but this "hateful eight" and this "flat-earth"-
i don't understand what use they
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:12:02AM +0300, 4 wrote:
>> i haven't used queues for a long time, but now there is a need. previously,
>> queues had not only a hierarchy, but also a priority. now there is no
>> priority, only the hierarchy exists. i was surprised, but i thought that
>> this is
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 12:12:02AM +0300, 4 wrote:
> i haven't used queues for a long time, but now there is a need. previously,
> queues had not only a hierarchy, but also a priority. now there is no
> priority, only the hierarchy exists. i was surprised, but i thought that this
> is quite in
22 matches
Mail list logo
